Jury finds Donald Trump guilty on all 34 counts at hush money trial(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Jury finds Donald Trump guilty on all 34 counts at hush money trial
https://www.reuters.com/legal/jurors-begin-second-day-deliberations-trump-hush-money-trial-2024-05-30/
278 comments
Unfortunately, the HN conversation structure, while great for technical discussions, does not function well for political discussions.
I wish there were a similar site for reasonable political debate, but the moderation required would probably be too expensive.
I wish there were a similar site for reasonable political debate, but the moderation required would probably be too expensive.
Could you elaborate on that point about structure? I’m curious what you mean.
I mean the tree structure, the crowd-sourced moderation (flagging and downvotes), and promoting/hiding content based on votes.
When the topic isn't controversial, that all tends to promote the best comments.
But when the topic is controversial, it simply makes one point of view dominant. (The "hivemind" as redditors say.)
When the topic isn't controversial, that all tends to promote the best comments.
But when the topic is controversial, it simply makes one point of view dominant. (The "hivemind" as redditors say.)
Here's how this looks on the backend of Bluesky, just to provide a technical angle: https://bsky.app/profile/jaz.bsky.social/post/3ktqdpdyiku2q
And the firehose, but be warned: this has no moderation filters applied to it. https://firesky.tv/?filter=trump%20guilty
And the firehose, but be warned: this has no moderation filters applied to it. https://firesky.tv/?filter=trump%20guilty
I’d love to be a drywall repair contractor during these next few weeks.
Regardless of one's beliefs on Trump, it is a good day when presidents are no longer de facto immune from law. We now have case law that presidents can be prosecuted post-office. In terms of Montesquieu checks and balances, this is a good day.
In terms of the pragmatic health of America, I'm not nearly as sure.
In terms of the pragmatic health of America, I'm not nearly as sure.
I'm not sure they were de facto immune, it's just most were less criminal.
No, they were immune. Donald Trump is the first US President to be criminally indicted after leaving office. Mueller himself went before Congress and said nothing could be done about a President's illegal activities because you cannot pursue a President for illegal activity.
I suspect now that the custom (of pardoning and not prosecuting former and current political opponents) has been broken, we'll see a lot of prosecutions of political opponents in the future, because "lawfare" is now an established tactic.
I don't think that's a good thing.
Edit: How is it lawfare? The charges are based on a questionable, novel legal theory that no one has ever been prosecuted for before, as nonpartisan legal experts have observed from the beginning:
“The bottom line is that it’s murky,” said Richard Hasen, an expert in election law and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles law school. “And the district attorney did not offer a detailed legal analysis as to how they can do this, how they can get around these potential hurdles. And it could potentially tie up the case for a long time.”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-legal-analysis-b...
And they ignored the statute of limitations in order to bring these charges several years late.
When the prosecution starts ignoring the rules and inventing new legal theories for political ends, that's lawfare.
I don't think that's a good thing.
Edit: How is it lawfare? The charges are based on a questionable, novel legal theory that no one has ever been prosecuted for before, as nonpartisan legal experts have observed from the beginning:
“The bottom line is that it’s murky,” said Richard Hasen, an expert in election law and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles law school. “And the district attorney did not offer a detailed legal analysis as to how they can do this, how they can get around these potential hurdles. And it could potentially tie up the case for a long time.”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-legal-analysis-b...
And they ignored the statute of limitations in order to bring these charges several years late.
When the prosecution starts ignoring the rules and inventing new legal theories for political ends, that's lawfare.
What custom are you talking about?
The one time Nixon was pardoned by a member of his own political party.
Also, for example, Republican special prosecutor Robert Ray granting criminal immunity to Bill Clinton at the end of his term.
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clin...
Or, going waaaaaay back, Andrew ~Jackson~ (I mean Johnson, thank you) granting pardons to all Confederates after the Civil War.
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clin...
Or, going waaaaaay back, Andrew ~Jackson~ (I mean Johnson, thank you) granting pardons to all Confederates after the Civil War.
I think you mean Andrew Johnson
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardons_for_ex-Confederates
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardons_for_ex-Confederates
How is it lawfare when the suspect is guilty? If anything I hope this brings fewer criminal politicians. And more consequences for them.
They said the same about impeachments when Trump got 2 in a row, it has yet to happen to Biden. I wouldn't be so sure. Trump might be a precedent-breaking president because that's simply his essence.
Why link an article from a year ago, before the trial was even scheduled? You cherry picked one quote ignoring the rest of the article that actually answers a lot of questions your quoted expert asks.
<< “The bottom line is that it’s murky,” said Richard Hasen, an expert in election law and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles law school. “And the district attorney did not offer a detailed legal analysis as to how they can do this, how they can get around these potential hurdles. And it could potentially tie up the case for a long time.””
If you continue to read further in the article you linked then you would see that the DA had an answer to that:
<<“Bragg said the indictment doesn’t specify the potential underlying crimes because the law doesn’t require it.”
But beyond that, the DA did offer an explanation to how they could move forward with charging Trump:
<<“Falsifying business records can be charged as a misdemeanor, a lower-level crime that would not normally result in prison time. It rises to a felony — which carries up to four years behind bars — if there was an intent to commit or conceal a second crime. Bragg said his office routinely brings felony false business records cases.
In Trump’s case, Bragg said the phony business records were designed to cover up alleged state and federal election law violations. The $130,000 payment to Daniels exceeded the federal cap on campaign contributions, Bragg said. He also cited a New York election law that makes it a crime to promote a candidate by unlawful means.
“That is what this defendant did when he falsified business records in order to conceal unlawful efforts to promote his candidacy, and that is why we are here,” one of the case prosecutors, Chris Conroy, told the judge Tuesday.
Prosecutors, however, also alluded to another accusation involving tax law: that Trump’s scheme included a plan to mischaracterize the payments to Cohen as income to New York tax authorities.
“They did talk about tax crimes, and I think that could be potentially more compelling for the jury,” Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, said on ABC News. “It’s a safer bet than the campaign finance crimes.”
Bragg is “going to bring in witnesses, he’s going to show a lot of documentary evidence to attempt to demonstrate that all these payments were in furtherance of the presidential campaign,” said Jerry H. Goldfeder, a veteran election lawyer in New York and the director of Fordham Law School’s Voting Rights and Democracy Project.”
> And they ignored the statute of limitations in order to bring these charges several years late.
Again, in the article you linked it explains how they were legally able to extend the statute of limitations for this case:
<<There were some extensions during the pandemic, and state law also can stop the clock when a potential defendant is continuously outside the state.
<< “The bottom line is that it’s murky,” said Richard Hasen, an expert in election law and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles law school. “And the district attorney did not offer a detailed legal analysis as to how they can do this, how they can get around these potential hurdles. And it could potentially tie up the case for a long time.””
If you continue to read further in the article you linked then you would see that the DA had an answer to that:
<<“Bragg said the indictment doesn’t specify the potential underlying crimes because the law doesn’t require it.”
But beyond that, the DA did offer an explanation to how they could move forward with charging Trump:
<<“Falsifying business records can be charged as a misdemeanor, a lower-level crime that would not normally result in prison time. It rises to a felony — which carries up to four years behind bars — if there was an intent to commit or conceal a second crime. Bragg said his office routinely brings felony false business records cases.
In Trump’s case, Bragg said the phony business records were designed to cover up alleged state and federal election law violations. The $130,000 payment to Daniels exceeded the federal cap on campaign contributions, Bragg said. He also cited a New York election law that makes it a crime to promote a candidate by unlawful means.
“That is what this defendant did when he falsified business records in order to conceal unlawful efforts to promote his candidacy, and that is why we are here,” one of the case prosecutors, Chris Conroy, told the judge Tuesday.
Prosecutors, however, also alluded to another accusation involving tax law: that Trump’s scheme included a plan to mischaracterize the payments to Cohen as income to New York tax authorities.
“They did talk about tax crimes, and I think that could be potentially more compelling for the jury,” Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, said on ABC News. “It’s a safer bet than the campaign finance crimes.”
Bragg is “going to bring in witnesses, he’s going to show a lot of documentary evidence to attempt to demonstrate that all these payments were in furtherance of the presidential campaign,” said Jerry H. Goldfeder, a veteran election lawyer in New York and the director of Fordham Law School’s Voting Rights and Democracy Project.”
> And they ignored the statute of limitations in order to bring these charges several years late.
Again, in the article you linked it explains how they were legally able to extend the statute of limitations for this case:
<<There were some extensions during the pandemic, and state law also can stop the clock when a potential defendant is continuously outside the state.
[deleted]
I'd agree, if "no immunity from law" was applied equally.
I'm not from the US.
Can you give an example of another US President who was charged for a criminal offence outside of their term of office and declared to be immune from prosecution?
Or one who was investigated and then publicly not charged because they were deemed to be immune (for crimes outside of their term in office)?
Can you give an example of another US President who was charged for a criminal offence outside of their term of office and declared to be immune from prosecution?
Or one who was investigated and then publicly not charged because they were deemed to be immune (for crimes outside of their term in office)?
Why limit it to outside their term of office?
Bill Clinton undeniably committed perjury. That was during his term, but not related to his duties as President.
Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court.
He was also accused of rape and sexual assault by numerous women, and never charged in any of those cases.
The Democrat voters I knew at the time (including myself) knew quite well that he was guilty of perjury and sexual harassment, and probably sexual assault as well, but didn't care.
We felt that the investigation was politically motivated, and that having him in office was more important than enforcing the law.
Bill Clinton undeniably committed perjury. That was during his term, but not related to his duties as President.
Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court.
He was also accused of rape and sexual assault by numerous women, and never charged in any of those cases.
The Democrat voters I knew at the time (including myself) knew quite well that he was guilty of perjury and sexual harassment, and probably sexual assault as well, but didn't care.
We felt that the investigation was politically motivated, and that having him in office was more important than enforcing the law.
Look, if you want to toss Bill Clinton in jail for any or all of those offenses—go right ahead. I don’t think many Democrats would complain or shed a tear. If that’s the price for holding criminals responsible, then it’s one I’ll gladly pay.
Easy to say now, when you know it won't (can't) happen, and even if it did, it would have no effect on governing the nation.
As defrost said well: "the question of whether this was fair or unfair rests on whether other POTUS's have skated on criminal acts [for which they didn't have immunity as President]". Other POTUS's have, so, it was unfair.
Changing that may be a good idea, or it may simply lead to more abuse of power as the party in office investigates its enemies. I guess we'll find out.
As defrost said well: "the question of whether this was fair or unfair rests on whether other POTUS's have skated on criminal acts [for which they didn't have immunity as President]". Other POTUS's have, so, it was unfair.
Changing that may be a good idea, or it may simply lead to more abuse of power as the party in office investigates its enemies. I guess we'll find out.
It's pretty easy to say, full stop.
Yet no Democrats said it when it was a real possibility, and would have mattered. Despite your erroneous thoughts, many Democrats complained.
You are literally holding the judicial process hostage and throwing proportionality out the window to make some contrived, disingenuous point.
People are not willing to entertain this non-sense. He means it when any reasonable person would burn Bill Clinton just to avoid the catastrophe conservatives would bring upon this country by making the law useless.
Trust it.
And fix your perspectives. They're dangerous.
People are not willing to entertain this non-sense. He means it when any reasonable person would burn Bill Clinton just to avoid the catastrophe conservatives would bring upon this country by making the law useless.
Trust it.
And fix your perspectives. They're dangerous.
> the catastrophe conservatives would bring upon this country by making the law useless.
People with a different opinion winning would not end democracy. It would in fact be a triumph of democracy.
On the other hand, trying to remove candidates from the ballot, or jail them before an election, is a real threat to democracy.
Let the people decide in November.
People with a different opinion winning would not end democracy. It would in fact be a triumph of democracy.
On the other hand, trying to remove candidates from the ballot, or jail them before an election, is a real threat to democracy.
Let the people decide in November.
>People with a different opinion winning would not end democracy
That's their stated goal and motivation. It's not because it's different. It's what it is.
That's their stated goal and motivation. It's not because it's different. It's what it is.
> That's their stated goal
Show me the proof. Not some poorly reasoned allegation or out of context edited excerpt, but the original source where "they" say they intend to end democracy.
Show me the proof. Not some poorly reasoned allegation or out of context edited excerpt, but the original source where "they" say they intend to end democracy.
> Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court.
Didn't every Republican senator do the same to save Trump from Impeachment despite clearly calling insurrection?
Didn't every Republican senator do the same to save Trump from Impeachment despite clearly calling insurrection?
No, that's incorrect. But I'm tired of looking up sources for facts that clearly aren't appreciated here, so I'll let you look it up.
Because US Presidents have immunity (limited) for official acts commited while in office.
Donald Trump was convicted for acts outside of term in office as POTUS, the question of whether this was fair or unfair rests on whether other POTUS's have skated on criminal acts outside of their term in office.
Donald Trump was convicted for acts outside of term in office as POTUS, the question of whether this was fair or unfair rests on whether other POTUS's have skated on criminal acts outside of their term in office.
The key there is official acts.
Falsely testifying about Clinton's relations with a subordinate (Monica Lewinsky) was not an official act, and he didn't have immunity.
He was granted immunity by the Republican investigating him, Robert Ray, for reasons that AFAIK were never made clear.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/white_house-jan-june01...
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clin...
Falsely testifying about Clinton's relations with a subordinate (Monica Lewinsky) was not an official act, and he didn't have immunity.
He was granted immunity by the Republican investigating him, Robert Ray, for reasons that AFAIK were never made clear.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/white_house-jan-june01...
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clin...
He gave the reasons. He took a deal for a fine, loss of his law license for 5 years, and not pursuing lawyer fees as his punishment for what he did. In exchange for that, he would be immune from being prosecuted any further on that matter. It's quite plain in the article you linked.
Far less than the penalties he would have suffered had he been charged and (inevitably) convicted.
The question wasn't what the deal was, but why the prosecutor would offer such a sweet deal.
The question wasn't what the deal was, but why the prosecutor would offer such a sweet deal.
Every deal is more lenient than maximum or even typical penalties. Why else would people take them if not?
Why offer a deal at all?
The usual reason is to save money, but that wasn't a concern in that huge everlasting investigation of Clinton.
The usual reason is to save money, but that wasn't a concern in that huge everlasting investigation of Clinton.
It was 2001, Clinton was leaving office, Bush was entering. They didn't need a prosecution of a former president on their hands. They had just assumed the White House after losing the popular vote, people were bitter about the whole 2000 election to begin with. There was no political will to prosecute the Clintons, because the entire point of White Water and the subsequent Lewinsky investigations was to damage the Clintons politically. Mission accomplished.
I mean, it took years to badger the DOJ into prosecuting Trump for waging an insurrection when he was on his way out. Honestly Trump would have gotten the same treatment as Clinton if he hadn't gone apeshit at the end. He wouldn't have a Federal indictment or a Georgia indictment. The other Florida indictment wouldn't have happened if he would have just returned everything he had taken instead of lying about it for a year and trying to hide it.
The two NY cases would have resulted in a fine and community service if he had just kept his mouth shut and shown a little contrition.
I mean, it took years to badger the DOJ into prosecuting Trump for waging an insurrection when he was on his way out. Honestly Trump would have gotten the same treatment as Clinton if he hadn't gone apeshit at the end. He wouldn't have a Federal indictment or a Georgia indictment. The other Florida indictment wouldn't have happened if he would have just returned everything he had taken instead of lying about it for a year and trying to hide it.
The two NY cases would have resulted in a fine and community service if he had just kept his mouth shut and shown a little contrition.
> There was no political will to prosecute the Clintons, because the entire point of White Water and the subsequent Lewinsky investigations was to damage the Clintons politically. Mission accomplished.
Yeah, just like now, the goal is to damage Trump politically. That's exactly what people mean when they say the prosecution is politically motivated.
Yeah, just like now, the goal is to damage Trump politically. That's exactly what people mean when they say the prosecution is politically motivated.
Yes if it was applied equally Trump would have been sitting in jail long ago.
judgemerchan(2)
For it to really be "decided" SCOTUS would need to weigh in. Case law is is as you say based on precedent. And the higher the court that decided the stronger the precedent. A conviction that hasn't even started the appeals process isn't much to go on.
This was a state criminal case, not a federal one. It will go through the New York state appeal courts and end up in New York Supreme Court. IANAL but based on the commentary I've read, if SCOTUS overrules the state court's decision, all hell breaks loose legally speaking.
That said, SCOTUS has a very liberal interpretation of the concept of precedent so anything is possible.
That said, SCOTUS has a very liberal interpretation of the concept of precedent so anything is possible.
> It will go through the New York state appeal courts and end up in New York Supreme Court.
Nitpicking: New York's court nomenclature is super weird. "Supreme Courts" are their ordinary trial courts. Their highest level court is the Court of Appeals.
Nitpicking: New York's court nomenclature is super weird. "Supreme Courts" are their ordinary trial courts. Their highest level court is the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court could rule that the law itself is unconstitutional.
Or it could rule that the trial was invalidly performed. That would overturn the conviction, though prosecution could be brought again.
As you note, either of these would cause all hell to break loose. Last week I would have said that it was nonetheless certain. Today, noting that the court decided not to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I'm far less sure. They have no specific love for the man, even if I still think they're likely to act in a partisan manner in general.
Or it could rule that the trial was invalidly performed. That would overturn the conviction, though prosecution could be brought again.
As you note, either of these would cause all hell to break loose. Last week I would have said that it was nonetheless certain. Today, noting that the court decided not to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I'm far less sure. They have no specific love for the man, even if I still think they're likely to act in a partisan manner in general.
Just one example of why this might be overturned. Typically (almost always) the defence has the last word to the jury. (presumption of innocence). In this case the judge let the prosecution go last. Why is this a problem? The prosecution did not reveal the second crime (they gave a set of possible crimes) needed to elevate the misdemeanour to a felony, until they spoke at the end.
So you literally have a situation where the defendant went through a whole trial not knowing the full set of specific laws he was alleged to have broken. And the set of those laws were only revealed to the jury at the last moment. Literally denying the defence a legal opportunity to respond to the laws that the defendant was alleged to have broken.
Breaking law A = misdemeanour
Breaking law A + another law = Felony
Prosecution never revealed the other law Trump was alleged to have broken until closing arguments. Trial is about breaking law A. But closing arguments are about breaking law A in combination with another law.
The prosecution gave a set of possible other laws at closing arguments, in which they went last. The judge instructed the jury that they can individually select which other law they think Trump broke.
How can this possibly be a fair trail process, when you can defend yourself for breaking law A, but get punished for breaking laws A + X. In which X is not revealed to you during the proceedings of the trail, but only to the jury at the last moment.
Breaking law A = misdemeanour
Breaking law A + another law = Felony
Prosecution never revealed the other law Trump was alleged to have broken until closing arguments. Trial is about breaking law A. But closing arguments are about breaking law A in combination with another law.
The prosecution gave a set of possible other laws at closing arguments, in which they went last. The judge instructed the jury that they can individually select which other law they think Trump broke.
How can this possibly be a fair trail process, when you can defend yourself for breaking law A, but get punished for breaking laws A + X. In which X is not revealed to you during the proceedings of the trail, but only to the jury at the last moment.
> Typically (almost always) the defence has the last word to the jury. (presumption of innocence).
This is actually the complete opposite of the truth. Almost always, the side who has the absolute last word to the jury is the side that bears the burden of proof, i.e., the plaintiff (or government in a criminal trial). Usually this manifests as plaintiff goes first, then defendant, then plaintiff gets a rebuttal argument.
This is actually the complete opposite of the truth. Almost always, the side who has the absolute last word to the jury is the side that bears the burden of proof, i.e., the plaintiff (or government in a criminal trial). Usually this manifests as plaintiff goes first, then defendant, then plaintiff gets a rebuttal argument.
You're correct. But in this case, because the second crime was the reason for the felony charge, and revealed in the closing arguments. The only way it could be have been responded to, is if the judge allowed to defence to go last.
This will be one of the contentions in any appeal.
So the NY criminal dockets are sufficiently closed down that I can't find the defense's briefing papers on its motions. But given that some of the public orders do castigate that defense for trying to reraise the same "these charges are complete bullshit" too many times, that the defense helped prepare the jury instructions (which specifically include mention of the second crime), and the fact that the underlying second crime has been heavily reported on news media since the charges were first brought, I find it hard to believe that the first opportunity the defense could have known about the second crime was in closing arguments.
Also, I don't see in the transcript of the closing arguments any objections defense raised to the second crime only being brought up then, so even if it were true, it can't be raised in appeal.
Also, I don't see in the transcript of the closing arguments any objections defense raised to the second crime only being brought up then, so even if it were true, it can't be raised in appeal.
> Typically (almost always) the defense has the last word to the jury.
Where did you hear this? This is not true as far as I know.
Here is a NY State guide to jury trials that seems to support that prosecution always goes second:
So first the defense may (they can opt not to) deliver a summation. Then (meaning after the defense) the prosecution must (they don't have a choice) offer a summation.
> So you literally have a situation where the defendant went through a whole trial not knowing the full set of specific laws he was alleged to have broken.
No, this is not literally the situation. He knew the entire time he was charged for "Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" under NY State law. This was made very clear to him, but moreover his lawyers knew this the entire time as well. The particular law states:
It's not like some surprise evidence was revealed at closing which the defense had no opportunity to counter. In fact, they had every opportunity to mount a defense.
Notably, when they had their chance, they rested their case after calling a single witness who actually, in dramatic fashion, was caught in a lie by the prosecution on cross the way the defense hoped to catch Cohen in a lie on cross. Now it's laughable when they claim "we didn't have a chance to mount a defense", and people who didn't watch the trial treat that credulously.
What exactly would they have said in defense if they had another opportunity? "Cohen's a liar, the judge is biased, the jury is rigged, the venue is not friendly." Nothing we haven't heard already, that's the point; everything that could have been said, has been said, and now that the verdict is "guilty" they want to have said more, as if whatever they have to say isn't more of the same deflection the jury didn't buy.
We will see what the appeals court says but it's not looking good based on the fact many people have tried to argue this point on appeal, and it's been rejected.
Where did you hear this? This is not true as far as I know.
Here is a NY State guide to jury trials that seems to support that prosecution always goes second:
After all evidence has been presented, the defense may deliver a summation, or a closing statement to the jury. *The prosecutor must then deliver a summation*. The summations review the evidence and present arguments based upon the evidence in the case to try to persuade the jury to convict or acquit the defendant.
So first the defense may (they can opt not to) deliver a summation. Then (meaning after the defense) the prosecution must (they don't have a choice) offer a summation.
> So you literally have a situation where the defendant went through a whole trial not knowing the full set of specific laws he was alleged to have broken.
No, this is not literally the situation. He knew the entire time he was charged for "Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" under NY State law. This was made very clear to him, but moreover his lawyers knew this the entire time as well. The particular law states:
That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so.
It's not like some surprise evidence was revealed at closing which the defense had no opportunity to counter. In fact, they had every opportunity to mount a defense.
Notably, when they had their chance, they rested their case after calling a single witness who actually, in dramatic fashion, was caught in a lie by the prosecution on cross the way the defense hoped to catch Cohen in a lie on cross. Now it's laughable when they claim "we didn't have a chance to mount a defense", and people who didn't watch the trial treat that credulously.
What exactly would they have said in defense if they had another opportunity? "Cohen's a liar, the judge is biased, the jury is rigged, the venue is not friendly." Nothing we haven't heard already, that's the point; everything that could have been said, has been said, and now that the verdict is "guilty" they want to have said more, as if whatever they have to say isn't more of the same deflection the jury didn't buy.
We will see what the appeals court says but it's not looking good based on the fact many people have tried to argue this point on appeal, and it's been rejected.
How did you watch the trial when it wasn't televised?
"Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" is a misdemeanour, a small fine. Which at this point (2016) expired and could not be charged.
The main reason this was resurrected and elevated to a Felony is because of politics. The prosecutor is a Democrat that literally got elected on an "I'll get Trump platform". Which under the American system is fine. But suppose he doesn't get Trump in the end. Should he be charged for defrauding voters? Clearly he raised money off the promise to get Trump.
As far as the judge: The standard for a judge to recuse themselves is public "perception of bias" How could the judge not be biased, when he donated to a "Stop Trump" campaign in the past. Which is also contrary to NY ethical guidelines for judges. His daughter was and is fund raising millions off the trail. How can the judge's claim no to be biased be taken seriously when his family has a financial interest in the outcome of the trial?
>"INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent > to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so"
How could this trial have proved what it charged .. the intent for classifying the NDA as a legal expense was fraudulent (that it was really a campaign contribution). When there's a gap of a year between the time Trump got elected, and the classification happened. Trump got elected in 2016. Accountant classified it as a legal expense in 2017. How could the act of misclassifying be the campaign contribution (the fraudulent act), when it happened post election?
Without mind reading, how exactly did they manage to prove that NDA was a camping contribution and not simply to spare his spouse embarrassment from an affair from being publicly alleged ?
How can this be a fair trial when the judged allowed the prosecution to state that it is a fact that the payments constituted an unlawful financial contribution, yet simultaneously denied Trump the opportunity to present his expert campaign finance witness, that would have countered those claims. The jury makes decisions based on the evidence they get to hear. Yet the judge allowed only one side to be presented.
Finally, A conflicted judge will jail a former President based on a convoluted crime that requires two parts, with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime, and some aspect of mind reading and time travel.
Doesn't seem like most Americans are on board with this. This is bouncing Trump's poll numbers.
The people that want to get "Trump" are not stupid, so this just must be part A of a bigger plan ...so what is the next phase of their plan to prevent the public from electing Trump in a Democracy? I'm waiting to see.
"Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" is a misdemeanour, a small fine. Which at this point (2016) expired and could not be charged.
The main reason this was resurrected and elevated to a Felony is because of politics. The prosecutor is a Democrat that literally got elected on an "I'll get Trump platform". Which under the American system is fine. But suppose he doesn't get Trump in the end. Should he be charged for defrauding voters? Clearly he raised money off the promise to get Trump.
As far as the judge: The standard for a judge to recuse themselves is public "perception of bias" How could the judge not be biased, when he donated to a "Stop Trump" campaign in the past. Which is also contrary to NY ethical guidelines for judges. His daughter was and is fund raising millions off the trail. How can the judge's claim no to be biased be taken seriously when his family has a financial interest in the outcome of the trial?
>"INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent > to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so"
How could this trial have proved what it charged .. the intent for classifying the NDA as a legal expense was fraudulent (that it was really a campaign contribution). When there's a gap of a year between the time Trump got elected, and the classification happened. Trump got elected in 2016. Accountant classified it as a legal expense in 2017. How could the act of misclassifying be the campaign contribution (the fraudulent act), when it happened post election?
Without mind reading, how exactly did they manage to prove that NDA was a camping contribution and not simply to spare his spouse embarrassment from an affair from being publicly alleged ?
How can this be a fair trial when the judged allowed the prosecution to state that it is a fact that the payments constituted an unlawful financial contribution, yet simultaneously denied Trump the opportunity to present his expert campaign finance witness, that would have countered those claims. The jury makes decisions based on the evidence they get to hear. Yet the judge allowed only one side to be presented.
Finally, A conflicted judge will jail a former President based on a convoluted crime that requires two parts, with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime, and some aspect of mind reading and time travel.
Doesn't seem like most Americans are on board with this. This is bouncing Trump's poll numbers.
The people that want to get "Trump" are not stupid, so this just must be part A of a bigger plan ...so what is the next phase of their plan to prevent the public from electing Trump in a Democracy? I'm waiting to see.
> How did you watch the trial when it wasn't televised?
You are aware that the trial was opened to the media and heavily reported on, and that the official transcripts are publicly accessible via the internet (at https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/), right?
You are aware that the trial was opened to the media and heavily reported on, and that the official transcripts are publicly accessible via the internet (at https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/), right?
I can tell you are getting your news about the trial filtered through right wing media, principally because these talking points are the kind of thing I get in my email inbox from the Trump campaign newsletter and Fox News. Most of the info you seek was presented at trial.
It's fascinating to me that you've paid enough attention to the trial to have received the right wing talking points as to why it's objectionable, but you haven't actually looked into any of the first hand information directly from the trial to verify the right wing talking points.
> How did you watch the trial when it wasn't televised?
I was using the word "watch" in the github repo sense, not in the visual television sense. I followed along with it via reporters who went to the trial and wrote down what they heard. Also I followed commentary from former prosecutors, attorneys and judges. I tried to stay away from political commentary from pundits and politicians, and I looked at left and right leaning sources.
> The prosecutor is a Democrat that literally got elected on an "I'll get Trump platform".
I've asked others for a source for this, and the best they have come up with is Bragg saying "We need to hold Trump accountable", which is a pretty anodyne statement for a DA to make compared to the one your purporting him to have made -- "I'll get Trump" is pretty extreme. What I've heard him say specifically is that he promised to follow the facts wherever they lead, and he promised not to prejudge the case.
> Should he be charged for defrauding voters? Clearly he raised money off the promise to get Trump.
He didn't actually campaign on a platform of getting Trump, he had a platform of reducing gun violence and reforming Riker's. Show me Bragg making one single stump speech or campaign event where he promises to "Get Trump". I predict you won't be able to, because actually Bragg is an eminently fair and competent DA, and all around good guy.
> How could the judge not be biased, when he donated to a "Stop Trump" campaign in the past.
Because he didn't -- he donated $15 to pro Biden and $10 to something called "Stop Republicans". It was seen as maybe not a great move by the ethics board, but they dismissed the complaint, and the appeals court didn't step in. At the end of the day, yes the judge is a Democrat. But that does not mean he is automatically biased against Trump and all Republicans to the point he can't preside over this cause. And frankly we don't want to live in a system where the standard is that politicians can only be judged/investigated/prosecuted by members of their own party.
Judges can and must be fair to a defendant even when they disagree with them politically. That is their whole job and we should be putting people in that position who can do precisely that. In the case of Judge Merchan, during the trial is he was eminently fair to Trump. He allowed him to get away with 10 counts of violating a gag order without any jail time. Normal people would be behind bars after 1 instance. Merchan made objections on behalf of defense counsel, and in fact had to warn Trump's attorney that he was dropping the ball for his client when he was failing to object. So the ethics board was right in dismissing the complaint, as the judge was fair to Trump.
> His daughter was and is fund raising millions off the trail.
Under the law she doesn't have enough stake in the outcome of the trial for it to matter. I hear people complaining about this constantly, but how do you figure the daughter of the judge raising money for Democrats means the judge is biased against Trump. Again, his conduct during the trial shows that he in fact was not biased. So what does the daughter have to do with anything. Seems like a red herring to me.
> How could the act of misclassifying be the campaign contribution (the fraudulent act), when it happened post election? ... Without mind reading, how exactly did they manage to prove that NDA was a camping contribution and not simply to spare his spouse embarrassment from an affair from being publicly alleged ?
Read the testimony of Hope Hicks. She testified under oath that he admitted to her after the election, while he was President, that he was fortunate to have hid the information from voters because he feels they would have reacted negatively to it. Trump had the opportunity to defend himself on this point but he didn't, so it's a matter of fact at this point.
> judged allowed the prosecution to state that it is a fact that the payments constituted an unlawful financial contribution
Because it was already adjudicated by SDNY.
> denied Trump the opportunity to present his expert campaign finance witness, that would have countered those claims.
Trump was free to present the witness, but he was looking for the witness to instruct the jury on his own interpretation of the law, which the judge disallowed because that's the judge's role in the trial, not an expert witness'.
> Yet the judge allowed only one side to be presented.
The judge allowed both sides to be presented. The defense was allowed to call any number of witnesses who could have testified in Trump's defense. Allen Weisselberg. Keith Schiller. Trump's family. The doorman who was paid off, I don't know his name. Any of them could have cleared up the matter, but they weren't called in Trump's defense because Trump's counsel knew they wouldn't have stood up under cross. Because Trump is guilty.
> a former President based on a convoluted crime that requires two parts, with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime, and some aspect of mind reading and time travel.
No mind reading. No time travel. It's just that he had to falsify business records in furtherance of another crime. The law is actually 2 pages long and straightforward. Moreover, most laws have more than one part, so that's not really objectionable. Maybe the case is a little convoluted, but that's because the crime was; they intentionally tried to hide this scheme through obfuscation, shell companies, and ultimately fraud -- of course it's convoluted.
> with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime,
No ambiguous intent. Pure intent. The jury determined Trump had that intent. Juries are the people in society we task with determining intent of criminal defendants, and they did so in this case. Why is that objectionable to you?
> Doesn't seem like most Americans are on board with this. This is bouncing Trump's poll numbers.
Doesn't matter if most Americans are on board with this, and it doesn't matter what happens to Trump's poll numbers -- it wasn't a political prosecution, it was an application of the law. Why are you bringing political considerations into this?
> The people that want to get "Trump" are not stupid, so this just must be part A of a bigger plan
This is paranoia.
It's fascinating to me that you've paid enough attention to the trial to have received the right wing talking points as to why it's objectionable, but you haven't actually looked into any of the first hand information directly from the trial to verify the right wing talking points.
> How did you watch the trial when it wasn't televised?
I was using the word "watch" in the github repo sense, not in the visual television sense. I followed along with it via reporters who went to the trial and wrote down what they heard. Also I followed commentary from former prosecutors, attorneys and judges. I tried to stay away from political commentary from pundits and politicians, and I looked at left and right leaning sources.
> The prosecutor is a Democrat that literally got elected on an "I'll get Trump platform".
I've asked others for a source for this, and the best they have come up with is Bragg saying "We need to hold Trump accountable", which is a pretty anodyne statement for a DA to make compared to the one your purporting him to have made -- "I'll get Trump" is pretty extreme. What I've heard him say specifically is that he promised to follow the facts wherever they lead, and he promised not to prejudge the case.
> Should he be charged for defrauding voters? Clearly he raised money off the promise to get Trump.
He didn't actually campaign on a platform of getting Trump, he had a platform of reducing gun violence and reforming Riker's. Show me Bragg making one single stump speech or campaign event where he promises to "Get Trump". I predict you won't be able to, because actually Bragg is an eminently fair and competent DA, and all around good guy.
> How could the judge not be biased, when he donated to a "Stop Trump" campaign in the past.
Because he didn't -- he donated $15 to pro Biden and $10 to something called "Stop Republicans". It was seen as maybe not a great move by the ethics board, but they dismissed the complaint, and the appeals court didn't step in. At the end of the day, yes the judge is a Democrat. But that does not mean he is automatically biased against Trump and all Republicans to the point he can't preside over this cause. And frankly we don't want to live in a system where the standard is that politicians can only be judged/investigated/prosecuted by members of their own party.
Judges can and must be fair to a defendant even when they disagree with them politically. That is their whole job and we should be putting people in that position who can do precisely that. In the case of Judge Merchan, during the trial is he was eminently fair to Trump. He allowed him to get away with 10 counts of violating a gag order without any jail time. Normal people would be behind bars after 1 instance. Merchan made objections on behalf of defense counsel, and in fact had to warn Trump's attorney that he was dropping the ball for his client when he was failing to object. So the ethics board was right in dismissing the complaint, as the judge was fair to Trump.
> His daughter was and is fund raising millions off the trail.
Under the law she doesn't have enough stake in the outcome of the trial for it to matter. I hear people complaining about this constantly, but how do you figure the daughter of the judge raising money for Democrats means the judge is biased against Trump. Again, his conduct during the trial shows that he in fact was not biased. So what does the daughter have to do with anything. Seems like a red herring to me.
> How could the act of misclassifying be the campaign contribution (the fraudulent act), when it happened post election? ... Without mind reading, how exactly did they manage to prove that NDA was a camping contribution and not simply to spare his spouse embarrassment from an affair from being publicly alleged ?
Read the testimony of Hope Hicks. She testified under oath that he admitted to her after the election, while he was President, that he was fortunate to have hid the information from voters because he feels they would have reacted negatively to it. Trump had the opportunity to defend himself on this point but he didn't, so it's a matter of fact at this point.
> judged allowed the prosecution to state that it is a fact that the payments constituted an unlawful financial contribution
Because it was already adjudicated by SDNY.
> denied Trump the opportunity to present his expert campaign finance witness, that would have countered those claims.
Trump was free to present the witness, but he was looking for the witness to instruct the jury on his own interpretation of the law, which the judge disallowed because that's the judge's role in the trial, not an expert witness'.
> Yet the judge allowed only one side to be presented.
The judge allowed both sides to be presented. The defense was allowed to call any number of witnesses who could have testified in Trump's defense. Allen Weisselberg. Keith Schiller. Trump's family. The doorman who was paid off, I don't know his name. Any of them could have cleared up the matter, but they weren't called in Trump's defense because Trump's counsel knew they wouldn't have stood up under cross. Because Trump is guilty.
> a former President based on a convoluted crime that requires two parts, with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime, and some aspect of mind reading and time travel.
No mind reading. No time travel. It's just that he had to falsify business records in furtherance of another crime. The law is actually 2 pages long and straightforward. Moreover, most laws have more than one part, so that's not really objectionable. Maybe the case is a little convoluted, but that's because the crime was; they intentionally tried to hide this scheme through obfuscation, shell companies, and ultimately fraud -- of course it's convoluted.
> with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime,
No ambiguous intent. Pure intent. The jury determined Trump had that intent. Juries are the people in society we task with determining intent of criminal defendants, and they did so in this case. Why is that objectionable to you?
> Doesn't seem like most Americans are on board with this. This is bouncing Trump's poll numbers.
Doesn't matter if most Americans are on board with this, and it doesn't matter what happens to Trump's poll numbers -- it wasn't a political prosecution, it was an application of the law. Why are you bringing political considerations into this?
> The people that want to get "Trump" are not stupid, so this just must be part A of a bigger plan
This is paranoia.
I wish the trial was televised. The source of information about the trial I'm relying on is Allen Dershowitz and CBC news youtube channels. Derszowtiz is a self described lifet8me Democrat and CBC news is hardly right wing, it's actually kind of opposite.
Allen is an experienced lawyer and gifted lecturer and orator. The criticisms that Allen has levied against the trial are nothing more than simple logical counter arguments to what went on in the court room.
CBC is pretty much is Canadian version of PBS.
I have also watched yesterday a more conspiratorial take on things which I suppose you could classify as fun intuitive speculation. Ian Caroll on Twitter
https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1djGXNqnEVdxZ
I wish it was televised so I could watch it directly.
But maybe I can get some AI help to read the pdf transcripts time permitting.
CBC is pretty much is Canadian version of PBS.
I have also watched yesterday a more conspiratorial take on things which I suppose you could classify as fun intuitive speculation. Ian Caroll on Twitter
https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1djGXNqnEVdxZ
I wish it was televised so I could watch it directly.
But maybe I can get some AI help to read the pdf transcripts time permitting.
Derszowtiz live streams
https://www.youtube.com/live/uksgiZxGk4U?si=5WNVC0ysmhcTHubH
https://www.youtube.com/live/uksgiZxGk4U?si=5WNVC0ysmhcTHubH
This doesn't really make much sense in this specific case. It was a state court, and he was found guilty of a state crime. While state decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court, it requires that some Constitutional or some violation of other federal law be in question. I haven't seen anyone argue that in this case, even Trump's biggest supporters.
Contrast that with the Jan 6th case, which is a federal case and is currently before the Supreme Court.
Contrast that with the Jan 6th case, which is a federal case and is currently before the Supreme Court.
Sure, New York Supreme Court then. But SCOTUS still weighs in on matters of federal law and constitution which I'm sure will come up from Trump's legal team.
Case law is case law. The point was we haven't even gotten started yet on "deciding" anything.
Case law is case law. The point was we haven't even gotten started yet on "deciding" anything.
I don't see any non-frivolous argument that can be made here. Federal law doesn't preempt state criminal law (you can in fact be tried in both federal and state court for the same offense), and I have a hard time seeing any constitutional claim that can be pressed here (especially one that isn't precluded by defense failing to object).
[deleted]
Don't really think it's a good idea to let lawyers pick who the people can vote for. Nor that justice is served when the conviction is obtained on alleged book keeping crime from 2017 in which it was claimed it was to influence an election in 2016, and relied on testimony from a man that perjured himself multiple times. And that it was illegal for a bookkeeper to select "legal expense" for payment of an NDA agreement.
[deleted]
As far as I can see, betting markets moved very slightly in favour of Democrats winning on this verdict.
Got a link for that? I'm not into betting/betting sites, all I get is old articles about Mr. Orange being the favorite still
Check out the 24h chart on https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7456/Who-will-win-t...
The roughly 50-45 Trump-Biden favor briefly flipped to 48-50 but now looks to be reverting to the mean.
The roughly 50-45 Trump-Biden favor briefly flipped to 48-50 but now looks to be reverting to the mean.
I’m sorry, do those odds claim that Obama has an almost 4% chance of becoming president?
I think it is Michelle Obama.
That's what the "market" thinks. You are welcome to "arbitrage" it with some $!
Biden has a non zero probability of dying before the election (of natural causes). Plus DNC nomination is a super pac driven process. Math might just compute.
Biden has a non zero probability of dying before the election (of natural causes). Plus DNC nomination is a super pac driven process. Math might just compute.
> Biden has a non zero probability of dying before the election (of natural causes). Plus DNC nomination is a super pac driven process. Math might just compute.
So the odds of Biden dying, times the odds of Michelle Obama wanting to run, times the odds of the DNC not picking Kamala Harris—the current VP, times the odds of Michelle Obama actually winning, might work out to 4%?
...uh... I don't even know what to say about that.
So the odds of Biden dying, times the odds of Michelle Obama wanting to run, times the odds of the DNC not picking Kamala Harris—the current VP, times the odds of Michelle Obama actually winning, might work out to 4%?
...uh... I don't even know what to say about that.
You can just put money where your mouth is. Some betting sites offer contracts you can buy and sell.
Biden has a non zero probability of dying before the election (of natural causes).
So does Trump, who is arguably in worse health, even if slightly younger.
So does Trump, who is arguably in worse health, even if slightly younger.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presiden...
has Trump in the lead. Betfair have Trump 1:1, Biden 6:4 on Betfair.
has Trump in the lead. Betfair have Trump 1:1, Biden 6:4 on Betfair.
Even if Trump appeals and wins, he has 4 other trials lined up. It's going to be an interesting election.
On the chance that he wins presidency, it is sure he will push for laws to gain more power. Perhaps even more Republican supreme court justices.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/legal-troubles-former-us-pr...
* TRIAL OVER HUSH MONEY TO PORN STAR
* SPECIAL COUNSEL'S ELECTION SUBVERSION CHARGES
* GEORGIA ELECTION-SUBVERSION CHARGES
* NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL LAWSUIT
* SPECIAL COUNSEL'S CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CHARGES
On the chance that he wins presidency, it is sure he will push for laws to gain more power. Perhaps even more Republican supreme court justices.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/legal-troubles-former-us-pr...
* TRIAL OVER HUSH MONEY TO PORN STAR
* SPECIAL COUNSEL'S ELECTION SUBVERSION CHARGES
* GEORGIA ELECTION-SUBVERSION CHARGES
* NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL LAWSUIT
* SPECIAL COUNSEL'S CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CHARGES
The other cases will probably get delayed till after the election, and dropped if he wins. It's kind of odd he's been prosecuted for this odd not really a crime stuff but not for the more serious ones.
This is absolutely a crime - you really don’t want to tolerate politicians committing crimes to conceal information from voters. What makes it different is that it’s entirely at the state level so you don’t have political interference: he can’t have judges he appointed running interference and prosecutors are not wondering whether the guy they’re charging will be their boss. I suspect that if the national GOP hadn’t purged opposition figures you’d see more cases brought with the protection of a hypothetical “law and order” wing of the party.
The case is a funny one though - false records to cover up influencing an election through unlawful means but the means were not specified - could be a) campaign finance laws or could be b) NY tax laws or c) other. I think the jury were told any would do and I'm not sure that's published so even after being convicted Trump doesn't know if it's for a, b or c? I'm not a lawyer or even an American - I just follow this out of mild interest.
I'm not a Trump fan but I'm not sure how well this plays out. He's unlikely to get locked up and saying don't vote for Trump - he's guilty of stuff although we are not quite sure what but definitely guilty, may not play that well with electors.
I'm not a Trump fan but I'm not sure how well this plays out. He's unlikely to get locked up and saying don't vote for Trump - he's guilty of stuff although we are not quite sure what but definitely guilty, may not play that well with electors.
... Wait, how is it not really a crime? It's fraud. Now, it's not terribly _serious_ next to some of the other stuff he's being charged with, but arguably that's part of _why_ it got done quicker; more serious crime takes longer to prosecute.
Well there's stuff here https://archive.ph/9qiNB
part of it:
>Yet to get the case to court, Bragg had to turn the charges into felonies, with longer time limits. So he invented a novel and untested legal theory, maligned even by liberal legal commentators, that the bookkeeping issues were to illegally influence an election – his own 2016 winning election.
It's a special crime invented to get Trump. It's legally dubious that that's ok. I'm not a lawyer but I'm told there is a principle that laws should be clearly laid out rather than cobbled together after the offence and the case may well get overturned on appeal as a result.
part of it:
>Yet to get the case to court, Bragg had to turn the charges into felonies, with longer time limits. So he invented a novel and untested legal theory, maligned even by liberal legal commentators, that the bookkeeping issues were to illegally influence an election – his own 2016 winning election.
It's a special crime invented to get Trump. It's legally dubious that that's ok. I'm not a lawyer but I'm told there is a principle that laws should be clearly laid out rather than cobbled together after the offence and the case may well get overturned on appeal as a result.
Please be more critical about what you read. The source you linked is full of lies and is designed to mislead you.
For instance, this line right here: "But then along came Alvin Bragg, a Left-wing prosecutor who ran for office on the promise that he would do what prior prosecutors had failed to do, to get Donald Trump."
Try to find out where Bragg "ran for office on the promise the he would... get Trump".
I guarantee you, you will not be able to find this, because Bragg didn't actually do that.
Continuing:
That's the whole reason they had Michael Cohen do it off the books. But again, they had to hide the payment, so they lied about its purpose (legal expenses, they were not), and then they memorialized that lie in corporate records.
Crime 1 - falsification of business records. You can't tell the government a payment was for legal expenses when it was not.
Crime 2 - misuse of campaign funds. You can't use campaign finances to make hush money payments without reporting them, and you can't circumvent that mandated reporting by having your fixer take out a mortgage and then paying him back with pretextual "legal expenses".
For instance, this line right here: "But then along came Alvin Bragg, a Left-wing prosecutor who ran for office on the promise that he would do what prior prosecutors had failed to do, to get Donald Trump."
Try to find out where Bragg "ran for office on the promise the he would... get Trump".
I guarantee you, you will not be able to find this, because Bragg didn't actually do that.
Continuing:
There is nothing illegal about paying money to buy silence. It happens every day in court cases and business deals, where money is paid for non-disclosure agreements. And there is nothing illegal about politicians hiding their dirty laundry, happens every campaign.
That's the whole reason they had Michael Cohen do it off the books. But again, they had to hide the payment, so they lied about its purpose (legal expenses, they were not), and then they memorialized that lie in corporate records.
Crime 1 - falsification of business records. You can't tell the government a payment was for legal expenses when it was not.
Crime 2 - misuse of campaign funds. You can't use campaign finances to make hush money payments without reporting them, and you can't circumvent that mandated reporting by having your fixer take out a mortgage and then paying him back with pretextual "legal expenses".
Sorry I spent an hour writing this and now I want to post it even though the comment in reply to me is dead. I don't think that comment should be dead except for the first sentence where they came in hot. But it's otherwise important for the conversation going on.
> here is an article outlining his plans and promise on doing just that before he took office
This article does not show that Bragg ran for office promising to prosecute Trump. Quite the opposite. Notwithstanding the article you linked was written after the election, it doesn't even allege what you are claiming.
Bragg even explicitly says he plans to treat Trump the same as any other citizen, in that he will apply the same standards to Trump: "even though the investigation involves a former president, he would apply “the analysis that we’ve always used, I’ve always used, in multiple offices.” He said that is: “Would you bring this case otherwise? That’s got to be the guiding light.”
So thanks for the article, it proves my point. You won't be able to find one that proves your point, because Bragg didn't actually campaign on prosecuting Trump.
> The falsification was that the records were not properly labeled as campaign expenditures.
Well that's the crux of the matter. Your framing, that they were "not properly labeled" was Trump's defense, and was rejected by a jury after reviewing the evidence. In fact, the jury found the records were not properly labeled intentionally in the commission of a crime.
> which is usually not done by local/state courts
But sometimes is, as in this case.
> prosecutors usually don't have the authority to prosecute on federal campaign laws
But sometimes they do? Either way that's not what happened here, they didn't prosecute on federal campaign laws. All they had to do was show that Trump intended to commit a crime, one of which could be violating campaign finance laws. That's not the same as prosecuting a federal campaign law. And besides, the article lists two additional crimes that were on the table to satisfy that requirement.
> this case is very novel in that regard.
I would expect it to be -- not too many people are prosecuted for the facts of this case because not too many people put themselves in a situation to be prosecuted as such.
> Furthermore, the judge allowed the jurors to differ on what the second crime (the alleged crime the falsified records were covering for) actually was. So, the jury was not unanimous on all facts of the case.
Wrong, the jury was unanimous on the facts required for conviction. If the law requires the commission of an additional crime, and 6 jury members points to crime A, while the other 6 jury members points to crime B, that satisfies the requirement of the law. There's no requirement for them all to have to point to the same crime, why should there be? The point of the upgrade to a felony is to make it so that if you do more crime, you do more time. What is the problem with this, that seems reasonable to me.
> you are usually given ample and crystal-clear instructions at every step of the process, notably getting an easy-to-follow checklist of what facts you have to find to find the defendant guilty.
And sometimes you're not? You keep pointing to "usually this" and "usually that", but not everything is usual, especially in an unusual case. Something being unusual doesn't mean it's wrong or nefarious. And you seem to be speaking as to how things are usually done, but I'm not confident you have the depth/breadth of knowledge or experience in this area to actually claim how things usually are with any authority. There are other resources that have been posted here (a link from justsecurity) which seem to indicate that this law has been used frequently in the past to prosecute individuals.
> Judge Merchan did NOT do this and instead gave somewhat confusing verbal instructions to the jury.
You can't say this, you don't know the jury was confused. If they were confused, they had ample opportunity for clarification from the judge. In fact they used this process to get clarification over the transcript and their instructions. The judge asked them if they needed more info and they said no. So the jury was not confused by their instructions. When they rendered their guilty verdict, they knew exactly what they were doing.
> here is an article outlining his plans and promise on doing just that before he took office
This article does not show that Bragg ran for office promising to prosecute Trump. Quite the opposite. Notwithstanding the article you linked was written after the election, it doesn't even allege what you are claiming.
Bragg, who will be sworn into office on January 1, said he hasn’t been briefed on the facts of the Trump case, which is before a state grand jury. But he indicated he has no plans to disrupt the investigation he’s inheriting even as he also wants to focus on his own agenda.
“This is obviously a consequential case, one that merits the attention of the DA personally,” Bragg said in a recent interview over lunch in Harlem.
He ran on a platform to shake-up the culture of the storied prosecutor office.
Bragg even explicitly says he plans to treat Trump the same as any other citizen, in that he will apply the same standards to Trump: "even though the investigation involves a former president, he would apply “the analysis that we’ve always used, I’ve always used, in multiple offices.” He said that is: “Would you bring this case otherwise? That’s got to be the guiding light.”
So thanks for the article, it proves my point. You won't be able to find one that proves your point, because Bragg didn't actually campaign on prosecuting Trump.
> The falsification was that the records were not properly labeled as campaign expenditures.
Well that's the crux of the matter. Your framing, that they were "not properly labeled" was Trump's defense, and was rejected by a jury after reviewing the evidence. In fact, the jury found the records were not properly labeled intentionally in the commission of a crime.
> which is usually not done by local/state courts
But sometimes is, as in this case.
> prosecutors usually don't have the authority to prosecute on federal campaign laws
But sometimes they do? Either way that's not what happened here, they didn't prosecute on federal campaign laws. All they had to do was show that Trump intended to commit a crime, one of which could be violating campaign finance laws. That's not the same as prosecuting a federal campaign law. And besides, the article lists two additional crimes that were on the table to satisfy that requirement.
> this case is very novel in that regard.
I would expect it to be -- not too many people are prosecuted for the facts of this case because not too many people put themselves in a situation to be prosecuted as such.
> Furthermore, the judge allowed the jurors to differ on what the second crime (the alleged crime the falsified records were covering for) actually was. So, the jury was not unanimous on all facts of the case.
Wrong, the jury was unanimous on the facts required for conviction. If the law requires the commission of an additional crime, and 6 jury members points to crime A, while the other 6 jury members points to crime B, that satisfies the requirement of the law. There's no requirement for them all to have to point to the same crime, why should there be? The point of the upgrade to a felony is to make it so that if you do more crime, you do more time. What is the problem with this, that seems reasonable to me.
> you are usually given ample and crystal-clear instructions at every step of the process, notably getting an easy-to-follow checklist of what facts you have to find to find the defendant guilty.
And sometimes you're not? You keep pointing to "usually this" and "usually that", but not everything is usual, especially in an unusual case. Something being unusual doesn't mean it's wrong or nefarious. And you seem to be speaking as to how things are usually done, but I'm not confident you have the depth/breadth of knowledge or experience in this area to actually claim how things usually are with any authority. There are other resources that have been posted here (a link from justsecurity) which seem to indicate that this law has been used frequently in the past to prosecute individuals.
> Judge Merchan did NOT do this and instead gave somewhat confusing verbal instructions to the jury.
You can't say this, you don't know the jury was confused. If they were confused, they had ample opportunity for clarification from the judge. In fact they used this process to get clarification over the transcript and their instructions. The judge asked them if they needed more info and they said no. So the jury was not confused by their instructions. When they rendered their guilty verdict, they knew exactly what they were doing.
obamanationz(3)
[deleted]
"When you're born in this world you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in the united States you get a front row ticket." --George Carlin
We're about to see just how right Mr. Carlin was.
We're about to see just how right Mr. Carlin was.
[deleted]
[deleted]
swader999(3)
rvz(5)
Australian here. My 2 cents. For some reason I kinda like Trump in spite of his antics & theatrics. "Like" may be a strong word. In some respects I "like" Biden too, I've enjoyed some of his speeches, the coherent ones.
I recall Trump's 2016 election victory speech was actually good, well said. Read the transcript. He was sincere in his complements to Hilary, and he emphasised uniting everyone and repairing division which is exactly what leaders should do more often.
In my country we've had some shocker victory speeches from both sides of politics. Rambling egotistical diatribes feature heavily, or straight up reinforcing division and team-sport gloating.
This trial. I don't get it. $130,000 is nothing. NDA payments are legal, but we're told that classifying the payment incorrectly is some great crime? Give me a break, it's a porn star! Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago? Obviously a running president doesn't want a disgruntled porn star blabbing about old raunchy encounters, factual or otherwise. Enter the legal NDA.
America is funny. Bill Clinton lied about his affair with an employee while he was president. The Stormy affair supposedly happened long ago. Regardless of how much Trump is disliked, this trial and conviction is a circus. It confirms "lawfare" is indeed a thing, aimed at what looks to me like a crime no worse than jay-walking, relatively speaking. Good luck USA.
I recall Trump's 2016 election victory speech was actually good, well said. Read the transcript. He was sincere in his complements to Hilary, and he emphasised uniting everyone and repairing division which is exactly what leaders should do more often.
In my country we've had some shocker victory speeches from both sides of politics. Rambling egotistical diatribes feature heavily, or straight up reinforcing division and team-sport gloating.
This trial. I don't get it. $130,000 is nothing. NDA payments are legal, but we're told that classifying the payment incorrectly is some great crime? Give me a break, it's a porn star! Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago? Obviously a running president doesn't want a disgruntled porn star blabbing about old raunchy encounters, factual or otherwise. Enter the legal NDA.
America is funny. Bill Clinton lied about his affair with an employee while he was president. The Stormy affair supposedly happened long ago. Regardless of how much Trump is disliked, this trial and conviction is a circus. It confirms "lawfare" is indeed a thing, aimed at what looks to me like a crime no worse than jay-walking, relatively speaking. Good luck USA.
If you don't understand the trial, maybe you should have followed it.
> Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago?
Trump cared. He cared enough to pay her $130,000 for her silence, because he thought if she said what she had to say, he would not have won. This was the finding of the jury, and all that matters as far as his conviction.
> Enter the legal NDA.
If it were paid with legal funds. But it can't be paid for campaign funds, because they have to be accounted for. That's illegal. And you can't get around paying with campaign funds by having your fixer do it for you and then reimbursing him through disguised "legal payments". That's fraud.
Trump did both, so therefore today he's a criminal and a felon.
> this trial and conviction is a circus.
You didn't even pay attention to it, so how would you know? The trial was not a circus at all. It was all above board, the defendant's rights were maintained. Do you have anything specific to say as to how and why it was a circus?
Question: Do you think a candidate for high office should be able to commit and cover up crimes if they think it will increase their chances of getting elected? If not, if they do cover up and commit crimes, and are then elected, do you think they shouldn't be prosecuted if those crimes later come to light? Or are you immune from any crime you commit to get into office as long as you get elected to that office? Because it really seems like people want that to be the case.
> Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago?
Trump cared. He cared enough to pay her $130,000 for her silence, because he thought if she said what she had to say, he would not have won. This was the finding of the jury, and all that matters as far as his conviction.
> Enter the legal NDA.
If it were paid with legal funds. But it can't be paid for campaign funds, because they have to be accounted for. That's illegal. And you can't get around paying with campaign funds by having your fixer do it for you and then reimbursing him through disguised "legal payments". That's fraud.
Trump did both, so therefore today he's a criminal and a felon.
> this trial and conviction is a circus.
You didn't even pay attention to it, so how would you know? The trial was not a circus at all. It was all above board, the defendant's rights were maintained. Do you have anything specific to say as to how and why it was a circus?
Question: Do you think a candidate for high office should be able to commit and cover up crimes if they think it will increase their chances of getting elected? If not, if they do cover up and commit crimes, and are then elected, do you think they shouldn't be prosecuted if those crimes later come to light? Or are you immune from any crime you commit to get into office as long as you get elected to that office? Because it really seems like people want that to be the case.
Your comment epitomizes the staunch posturing of the expressive political circus that brought this case in the first place.
> "therefore today he's a criminal and a felon"...
This token is repeated ad nauseam. As if the objective is less about justice and more about political ammo; gleeful celebration of tokenized, distributed memes and sound bites. Biden had his prepared statement ready to go: "Nobody is above the law"..."Trump is dangerous" etc.
Your comment begins with "you don't understand", followed by "you didn't pay attention". So simple! You're basically saying "if only your cognitive abilities weren't so lacking, you'd see the trial wasn't a circus at all. Nothing to see here!"
USA is a hugely important ally to my country. We want USA to do well, no matter what party is in power. I wish more people would get behind their president while they're in office, regardless of whether they voted for them or not. Same in my country. It's clear that significant cohorts seek to tear people down with endless negativity, even advocating civil unrest if their choice of president doesn't eventuate. Left and right, tantrum politics is the norm. If you can't see the circus, you are unable to remove yourself from the circus tent.
> "therefore today he's a criminal and a felon"...
This token is repeated ad nauseam. As if the objective is less about justice and more about political ammo; gleeful celebration of tokenized, distributed memes and sound bites. Biden had his prepared statement ready to go: "Nobody is above the law"..."Trump is dangerous" etc.
Your comment begins with "you don't understand", followed by "you didn't pay attention". So simple! You're basically saying "if only your cognitive abilities weren't so lacking, you'd see the trial wasn't a circus at all. Nothing to see here!"
USA is a hugely important ally to my country. We want USA to do well, no matter what party is in power. I wish more people would get behind their president while they're in office, regardless of whether they voted for them or not. Same in my country. It's clear that significant cohorts seek to tear people down with endless negativity, even advocating civil unrest if their choice of president doesn't eventuate. Left and right, tantrum politics is the norm. If you can't see the circus, you are unable to remove yourself from the circus tent.
> This token is repeated ad nauseam.
It's been a single day...
> As if the objective is less about justice and more about political ammo; gleeful celebration of tokenized, distributed memes and sound bites.
Again, maybe you don't understand American politics if you don't know why people would be happy about this.
> Biden had his prepared statement ready to go: "Nobody is above the law"
Not exactly a statement one needs to prepare, it's what he's been saying for 4 years.
> Your comment begins with "you don't understand", followed by "you didn't pay attention".
I'm not questioning your cognitive abilities, I'm calling you ignorant in as nice a way as I can. In your post you recited a bunch of things you are confused about:
- $130,000 is nothing.
It's not nothing, it's $130,000. In fact it wasn't only $130,000, the total payments to Cohen was $420,000. Either way, you should see the amounts normal people are prosecuted for. The Just Security article linked elsewhere in this thread shows people prosecuted under this law for returning unpurchased items at a store and using store credit. So prosecutors better be lifting their heads for $130k.
- NDA payments are legal
Not if they are unreported and excessive campaign expenditures.
- classifying the payment incorrectly is some great crime
If it's done intentionally as a lie to conceal a campaign finance violation, hell yeah that's a crime.
- Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago?
Trump cared, he thought his wife and family would care, but moreover he thought his voters would care, and he voiced that fact to Hope Hicks, which she testified at trial.
All these facts were learned at trial. So yeah, you would not be asking these questions had you paid attention to the trial.
> Left and right, tantrum politics is the norm. If you can't see the circus, you are unable to remove yourself from the circus tent.
So you can't point to a specific circus in the case of this trial as alleged. Instead you gesture vaguely to political tantrums, which is unconvincing. But note the person throwing the biggest tantrum at the moment is in fact Trump and Republicans. Everyone else as far as I can tell is acting like an adult.
It's been a single day...
> As if the objective is less about justice and more about political ammo; gleeful celebration of tokenized, distributed memes and sound bites.
Again, maybe you don't understand American politics if you don't know why people would be happy about this.
> Biden had his prepared statement ready to go: "Nobody is above the law"
Not exactly a statement one needs to prepare, it's what he's been saying for 4 years.
> Your comment begins with "you don't understand", followed by "you didn't pay attention".
I'm not questioning your cognitive abilities, I'm calling you ignorant in as nice a way as I can. In your post you recited a bunch of things you are confused about:
- $130,000 is nothing.
It's not nothing, it's $130,000. In fact it wasn't only $130,000, the total payments to Cohen was $420,000. Either way, you should see the amounts normal people are prosecuted for. The Just Security article linked elsewhere in this thread shows people prosecuted under this law for returning unpurchased items at a store and using store credit. So prosecutors better be lifting their heads for $130k.
- NDA payments are legal
Not if they are unreported and excessive campaign expenditures.
- classifying the payment incorrectly is some great crime
If it's done intentionally as a lie to conceal a campaign finance violation, hell yeah that's a crime.
- Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago?
Trump cared, he thought his wife and family would care, but moreover he thought his voters would care, and he voiced that fact to Hope Hicks, which she testified at trial.
All these facts were learned at trial. So yeah, you would not be asking these questions had you paid attention to the trial.
> Left and right, tantrum politics is the norm. If you can't see the circus, you are unable to remove yourself from the circus tent.
So you can't point to a specific circus in the case of this trial as alleged. Instead you gesture vaguely to political tantrums, which is unconvincing. But note the person throwing the biggest tantrum at the moment is in fact Trump and Republicans. Everyone else as far as I can tell is acting like an adult.
> It's been a single day...
You haven't been paying attention if you believe the moniker "convicted felon" started 3 days ago.
> Again, maybe you don't understand American politics if you don't know why...
Again you're joining unrelated dots to paint a picture of my "misunderstanding & confusion".
> ...people would be happy about this.
Happy about the displacement of justice with weaponising the legal system? There was never any confusion about why some are happy with the guilty verdict.
> It's not nothing
It's relatively nothing. It's white-collar slap-on-wrist stuff. The only difference is your efforts to tie it with crucially pivotal presidential campaign business. The wild claim you know Trump "knew he wouldn't win" unless he covered it up, is a glaring stretch.
Many voters didn't want Hilary, for various reasons. They would have stayed the course, unmoved by scandalous naughty interactions from years ago. Even after Trump's sexist and sorry "locker room talk" caught on mic, women still voted for him. Ask yourself why. Then ask yourself, if they weren't shaken by misogynistic locker-room talk, would they be shaken by sordid Stormy stories. Highly unlikely.
Likewise, many voters don't want Biden. For whatever reason - maybe it's less about Biden and more about not wanting Dems, or Harris after she stared into the camera at Americans and said with a straight face "the border is secure". Maybe that's why people will vote for a convicted felon whose dishonesty about the stationary cupboard is the lesser evil.
> So yeah, you would not be asking these questions had you paid attention to the trial.
I would and I did. Just as millions of others did. I'm asking the questions and all you have is "you don't understand, $130,000 violation, convicted felon etc". If you're trying to convince me of anything having "discovered" my vacuous understanding on the subject, you have failed.
> Circus
Even the judge had to step in to stop the mud-slinging descriptions of ass-slapping money-shot testimonies, unrelated to the case. A circus.
You haven't been paying attention if you believe the moniker "convicted felon" started 3 days ago.
> Again, maybe you don't understand American politics if you don't know why...
Again you're joining unrelated dots to paint a picture of my "misunderstanding & confusion".
> ...people would be happy about this.
Happy about the displacement of justice with weaponising the legal system? There was never any confusion about why some are happy with the guilty verdict.
> It's not nothing
It's relatively nothing. It's white-collar slap-on-wrist stuff. The only difference is your efforts to tie it with crucially pivotal presidential campaign business. The wild claim you know Trump "knew he wouldn't win" unless he covered it up, is a glaring stretch.
Many voters didn't want Hilary, for various reasons. They would have stayed the course, unmoved by scandalous naughty interactions from years ago. Even after Trump's sexist and sorry "locker room talk" caught on mic, women still voted for him. Ask yourself why. Then ask yourself, if they weren't shaken by misogynistic locker-room talk, would they be shaken by sordid Stormy stories. Highly unlikely.
Likewise, many voters don't want Biden. For whatever reason - maybe it's less about Biden and more about not wanting Dems, or Harris after she stared into the camera at Americans and said with a straight face "the border is secure". Maybe that's why people will vote for a convicted felon whose dishonesty about the stationary cupboard is the lesser evil.
> So yeah, you would not be asking these questions had you paid attention to the trial.
I would and I did. Just as millions of others did. I'm asking the questions and all you have is "you don't understand, $130,000 violation, convicted felon etc". If you're trying to convince me of anything having "discovered" my vacuous understanding on the subject, you have failed.
> Circus
Even the judge had to step in to stop the mud-slinging descriptions of ass-slapping money-shot testimonies, unrelated to the case. A circus.
> You haven't been paying attention if you believe the moniker "convicted felon" started 3 days ago.
Can you show me an example of anyone besides a random internet comment using it? Like a journalist, media outlet, or a politician?
I know people are apt to use the phrase "twice impeached" because he was impeached twice. And one-term because he wasn't reelected due to his unpopularity. I know they do say "liable for rape" because he was found to have done that in a court of law. But no, I haven't heard "convicted felon" before he actually became a convicted felon, I'll be surprised if you can back that up substantially.
> my "misunderstanding & confusion".
You said it, not me.
> Happy about the displacement of justice with weaponising the legal system?
You are Australian, and here you are repeating American right wing propaganda to shit on a system of justice about which you know nothing except filtered through said right wing propaganda. Just stop? Please?
Can you even explain precisely how the system was weaponized without referencing said right wing sources?
You can't because it wasn't. We'll let the appeals process prove that for you, but the mere fact Trump is now given the right of an appeal should make clear that the system that's applied to everyone else is working for him, and that's not a "weaponization" of anything.
Trump was tried in a fair and speedy manner, he was was informed of all charges against him, his bail was set at a reasonable amount, he received all due process in accordance with the 14th and 5th amendments, he was presumed innocent throughout the trial, he was given a rigorous defense and was adequately represented by counsel, he heard all the evidence against him, he was afforded the right to cross examine all witnesses, he maintained his 5th amendment right to not testify, a jury of his peers applied the facts to the law and convicted him unanimously, and he will be sentenced fairly under the 8th amendment. And again, this whole process is subject to review and that is his right as well.
So where is the problem? Where does the weaponization come in? The prosecutor was independent of any political influence and they weren't even feds. Who is doing this weaponization? Joe Biden? How? And if Joe Biden is weaponizing the legal system, why is it prosecuting his own son? Does Joe Biden hate his own son that much?
Sorry, but this whole "weaponization" idea is literally a Republican political talking point, and you've bought into it from across the world for some reason. Republicans formed a whole committee over it and have had hearings for years now about this idea, hearings which crucially haven't actually produced evidence of weaponization! They keep promising it will come though!
> It's relatively nothing.
This is why I don't think you really paid attention to the trial at all, because the reason the amount breaks the law was explained at trial.
Anyway, I can understand why none of this seems important to you, seeing as it's about a political system that you are not a part of and which doesn't impact your life like it does mine. Maybe I'll try to explain it to you. In America we have a system where you have to spend money to get elected. The more money you spend the better your chances of getting elected. Because of this, everyone who is running for office has to report campaign expenditures, because there are limits on what people can spend.
Donald Trump felt that what Stormy had to say would hurt his campaign. This is not my "wild claim", this is a matter of fact determined by the jury as part of their verdict, so that's a settled matter. Trump felt that what Stormy had to say about their affair would hurt his chances at getting elected. Again, the evidence for this was presented at court and I don't have to repeat it here because you assure me you followed the trial, but if you didn't you can find it in the testimony of Hope Hicks and David Pecker who presented the best evidence of this fact. Anyway, the jury found that evidence credible.
So he committed fraud to hide everything. This was not a mere "white collar crime" -- this was a circumvention of the safeguards of the democratic process. If that's tolerated, then all slimeball shitbag candidates (and there are many) will do the same thing: hide their affairs, their rapes, their assaults all their dirty laundry through the same slimeball sleazebag scheme Trump came up with here.
Maybe that kind of behavior is tolerated in Australian politics, but it's a felony in America.
> I'm asking the questions...
You're asking questions that were answered clearly at trial. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
> Even the judge had to step in to stop the mud-slinging descriptions of ass-slapping money-shot testimonies, unrelated to the case. A circus.
Erm, it's more like if you convict a clown, there's going to be evidence of a circus at trial. That testimony was relevant to the charged conduct, and the defendant invited the testimony when he denied the affair happened. If he didn't want to be embarrassed by contrary testimony, he should have just admitted the conduct. Don't you think it's highly relevant that the jury believe the affair happened if they're going to accept the lengths to which Trump went to conceal it?
That's not the same as the trial being a circus, and you admit that when you say the judge kept things in order.
Can you show me an example of anyone besides a random internet comment using it? Like a journalist, media outlet, or a politician?
I know people are apt to use the phrase "twice impeached" because he was impeached twice. And one-term because he wasn't reelected due to his unpopularity. I know they do say "liable for rape" because he was found to have done that in a court of law. But no, I haven't heard "convicted felon" before he actually became a convicted felon, I'll be surprised if you can back that up substantially.
> my "misunderstanding & confusion".
You said it, not me.
> Happy about the displacement of justice with weaponising the legal system?
You are Australian, and here you are repeating American right wing propaganda to shit on a system of justice about which you know nothing except filtered through said right wing propaganda. Just stop? Please?
Can you even explain precisely how the system was weaponized without referencing said right wing sources?
You can't because it wasn't. We'll let the appeals process prove that for you, but the mere fact Trump is now given the right of an appeal should make clear that the system that's applied to everyone else is working for him, and that's not a "weaponization" of anything.
Trump was tried in a fair and speedy manner, he was was informed of all charges against him, his bail was set at a reasonable amount, he received all due process in accordance with the 14th and 5th amendments, he was presumed innocent throughout the trial, he was given a rigorous defense and was adequately represented by counsel, he heard all the evidence against him, he was afforded the right to cross examine all witnesses, he maintained his 5th amendment right to not testify, a jury of his peers applied the facts to the law and convicted him unanimously, and he will be sentenced fairly under the 8th amendment. And again, this whole process is subject to review and that is his right as well.
So where is the problem? Where does the weaponization come in? The prosecutor was independent of any political influence and they weren't even feds. Who is doing this weaponization? Joe Biden? How? And if Joe Biden is weaponizing the legal system, why is it prosecuting his own son? Does Joe Biden hate his own son that much?
Sorry, but this whole "weaponization" idea is literally a Republican political talking point, and you've bought into it from across the world for some reason. Republicans formed a whole committee over it and have had hearings for years now about this idea, hearings which crucially haven't actually produced evidence of weaponization! They keep promising it will come though!
> It's relatively nothing.
This is why I don't think you really paid attention to the trial at all, because the reason the amount breaks the law was explained at trial.
Anyway, I can understand why none of this seems important to you, seeing as it's about a political system that you are not a part of and which doesn't impact your life like it does mine. Maybe I'll try to explain it to you. In America we have a system where you have to spend money to get elected. The more money you spend the better your chances of getting elected. Because of this, everyone who is running for office has to report campaign expenditures, because there are limits on what people can spend.
Donald Trump felt that what Stormy had to say would hurt his campaign. This is not my "wild claim", this is a matter of fact determined by the jury as part of their verdict, so that's a settled matter. Trump felt that what Stormy had to say about their affair would hurt his chances at getting elected. Again, the evidence for this was presented at court and I don't have to repeat it here because you assure me you followed the trial, but if you didn't you can find it in the testimony of Hope Hicks and David Pecker who presented the best evidence of this fact. Anyway, the jury found that evidence credible.
So he committed fraud to hide everything. This was not a mere "white collar crime" -- this was a circumvention of the safeguards of the democratic process. If that's tolerated, then all slimeball shitbag candidates (and there are many) will do the same thing: hide their affairs, their rapes, their assaults all their dirty laundry through the same slimeball sleazebag scheme Trump came up with here.
Maybe that kind of behavior is tolerated in Australian politics, but it's a felony in America.
> I'm asking the questions...
You're asking questions that were answered clearly at trial. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
> Even the judge had to step in to stop the mud-slinging descriptions of ass-slapping money-shot testimonies, unrelated to the case. A circus.
Erm, it's more like if you convict a clown, there's going to be evidence of a circus at trial. That testimony was relevant to the charged conduct, and the defendant invited the testimony when he denied the affair happened. If he didn't want to be embarrassed by contrary testimony, he should have just admitted the conduct. Don't you think it's highly relevant that the jury believe the affair happened if they're going to accept the lengths to which Trump went to conceal it?
That's not the same as the trial being a circus, and you admit that when you say the judge kept things in order.
> NDA payments are legal, but we're told that classifying the payment incorrectly is some great crime? Give me a break, it's a porn star! Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago? Obviously a running president doesn't want a disgruntled porn star blabbing about old raunchy encounters, factual or otherwise. Enter the legal NDA.
Neither having sex with a porn star, nor paying a porn star to be quiet about the sex is illegal. Fraud is illegal, though, and is much worse than jay-walking.
Neither having sex with a porn star, nor paying a porn star to be quiet about the sex is illegal. Fraud is illegal, though, and is much worse than jay-walking.
Also why now and not before? Trump is a New Yorker and a famous one at that.
It seems like his great crime is that he won against their diva.
Why do i feel like this will skyrocket his poll. Is he still eligible to be on the ballot, while going through the appeal?
Appeal easily takes him to 2025.
Appeal easily takes him to 2025.
A guilty verdict is likely to motivate a large section of his own base to vote for him, but will also hurt his chances to sway undecided voters to vote for him.
In the end, it's going to depend on how many are motivated to vote for the democrats, and how many are motivated to vote for/against trump.
In the end, it's going to depend on how many are motivated to vote for the democrats, and how many are motivated to vote for/against trump.
I don't think so. I think more people are going to see this as a politically motivated kangaroo show trial than not. It takes some votes away, but it gives him others, at best I think it chsnges the calculus by roughly 0.
nah.. people that would vote for him because of this would already be voting for him any way.. i doubt he gains much votes because of this..
but he will sure loose votes on swing states..
but he will sure loose votes on swing states..
I think you underestimate the number of people who thought "they can't impeach a president for getting a blowjob" and actually meant it rather than using it as a tool of political expediency. Those people don't see this as justice. I think more people are principled than not.
Idk, you'd think there would come a point when enough people say he's a fraud that it gets through to his base. He's now a convicted felon, representing the party of "law and order". That shouldn't end well.
Have you had a conversation about the trial with a Trump supporter?
I think the more interesting question is how many of the people who aren’t ardent supporters will still vote for him. There are enough Republicans who didn’t like him but still wanted their party to win to shift an election which was already tight. This goes double for anyone who is not a complete diehard on the subject of abortion and might be asking themselves why they’re carrying water for a convicted felon, especially since they already got the tax cuts.
Trump supporters aren't going to sway the election.
They were always going to vote for him and will always vote for him.
The election is going to get decided at the margins by the kind of people who can still get swayed one way or the other to vote or not vote for one or the other candidate.
Actually convicting him can give a solid reason for someone who would have only very reluctantly voted for him to switch to Biden or just not vote at all. Old school Reagan conservatives who find that voting for an actual convicted felon is something they just won't do. It does create an additional nice red line of illegality, which should still matter to a few folks. It will cause some ethical problems with some Republicans for voting for him, and it really doesn't take much. The 2016 election was decided by a few 10,000s of people in 3-4 different states.
Where it can backfire, though, is if the conviction is overturned on appeal.
They were always going to vote for him and will always vote for him.
The election is going to get decided at the margins by the kind of people who can still get swayed one way or the other to vote or not vote for one or the other candidate.
Actually convicting him can give a solid reason for someone who would have only very reluctantly voted for him to switch to Biden or just not vote at all. Old school Reagan conservatives who find that voting for an actual convicted felon is something they just won't do. It does create an additional nice red line of illegality, which should still matter to a few folks. It will cause some ethical problems with some Republicans for voting for him, and it really doesn't take much. The 2016 election was decided by a few 10,000s of people in 3-4 different states.
Where it can backfire, though, is if the conviction is overturned on appeal.
I think you're missing a big factor here: both candidates have a track record as president. We haven't had that in a long time, often it's only the incumbent with a record, which we usually associate as in their favor. Part of that record, for both of them, isn't due to anything they did, but the times they ran things are associated with them. And of course part of it they're each responsible for.
Despite all the rhetoric, Trump has a pretty good track record to the average american. Wars ending, dollar a gallon gas. In contrast, Biden doesn't look too good. Wars starting, groceries going up weekly. We can say what is who's fault and what is out of their control and whatever, that is just noise to all but decided voters. I think that this case will sway some away, sway some for that don't like what they see as political weaponization of the justice system, and all in all it stays in Trumps favor.
Despite all the rhetoric, Trump has a pretty good track record to the average american. Wars ending, dollar a gallon gas. In contrast, Biden doesn't look too good. Wars starting, groceries going up weekly. We can say what is who's fault and what is out of their control and whatever, that is just noise to all but decided voters. I think that this case will sway some away, sway some for that don't like what they see as political weaponization of the justice system, and all in all it stays in Trumps favor.
> Despite all the rhetoric, Trump has a pretty good track record to the average american. Wars ending, dollar a gallon gas. In contrast, Biden doesn't look too good. Wars starting, groceries going up weekly. We can say what is who's fault and what is out of their control and whatever, that is just noise to all but decided voters.
Voters are able to assign fault to some degree, or they'd also assign "global pandemic starting" to Trump's record.
Voters are able to assign fault to some degree, or they'd also assign "global pandemic starting" to Trump's record.
That's the thing, I think he gets a pass on that. Probably doesn't get a pass on the lockdown or money printing, but no reasonable person blames the president for an illness. A war between foreign countries, lots of people have it in their heads that the president is very powerful and can start or stop stuff like that, true or not, but an illness...
Do you think Alexey Navalny‘s conviction for embezzlement caused him to lose any supporters? Probably not. It was a transparently political use of the justice system to sideline an opponent.
People I’ve talked to feel the same way about Trump. I’ve asked why vote in the primary for a candidate who lost the midterms and his last election, and the sentiment is that “We can’t let them get away with it” meaning the lawfare against Trump.
People I’ve talked to feel the same way about Trump. I’ve asked why vote in the primary for a candidate who lost the midterms and his last election, and the sentiment is that “We can’t let them get away with it” meaning the lawfare against Trump.
It almost certainly won't sway very many. But the Electoral College means that a small number of voters in the right place can radically change the outcome.
His supporters can't "vote harder", so it's entirely a question of how the marginal voters comes down on it. They don't have to switch their vote, but just decide to stay home.
I doubt the effect will be measurable, given the vast number of confounding variables. But should he lose, they will almost certainly ascribe it at least in part to the conviction.
His supporters can't "vote harder", so it's entirely a question of how the marginal voters comes down on it. They don't have to switch their vote, but just decide to stay home.
I doubt the effect will be measurable, given the vast number of confounding variables. But should he lose, they will almost certainly ascribe it at least in part to the conviction.
>People I’ve talked to feel the same way about Trump
You should tell them they're mistaken. He isn't being sidelined or kept off the ballot. That's a blatant lie that he is spreading himself. The case was supposed to happen last year until him and his lawyers used procedural tactics to delay it into this year. At any point he could have quietly chosen to settle, publicly declare innocence and then let the news pass just like he did with the Trump University case. But again, he chose not to for this one.
You should tell them they're mistaken. He isn't being sidelined or kept off the ballot. That's a blatant lie that he is spreading himself. The case was supposed to happen last year until him and his lawyers used procedural tactics to delay it into this year. At any point he could have quietly chosen to settle, publicly declare innocence and then let the news pass just like he did with the Trump University case. But again, he chose not to for this one.
There were efforts in most states to remove Trump from the ballot. Some were more successful than others. What part do you believe is a blatant lie?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/02/us/politics/t...
>What part do you believe is a blatant lie?
All of it, for multiple reasons.
1. Those are unrelated to the falsifying business records case, and those efforts weren't what Trump and his campaign have been referring to for these past few days anyway.
2. Those cases happened because Trump is alleged to have led a violent coup against his own government in violation of the 14th amendment. Something we all seem to have forgot with this constant distraction of courtrooms that this individual finds himself in.
3. Several of those cases were in states that Trump won. Of the several states that Biden won, the challenges were dismissed. Based on your link, it is entirely unfounded to claim this was political retribution.
4. In March the Supreme Court ruled none of them can proceed anyway and the map is irrelevant now, the article says this too. The 14th amendment can't be enforced by state courts, it has to be enforced by Congress.
In my opinion, you have to ignore a staggering number of facts and disregard all the actions of every single person in the courtroom all this month, including the actions of Trump and his own lawyers, to believe that this case in any way a political hit job. The judge actually went out of his way to prevent the prosecution from making it about that; the case was entirely about the illegal ways he conducted business along with his subordinates. Read the transcripts yourself if you don't believe me. https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/
All of it, for multiple reasons.
1. Those are unrelated to the falsifying business records case, and those efforts weren't what Trump and his campaign have been referring to for these past few days anyway.
2. Those cases happened because Trump is alleged to have led a violent coup against his own government in violation of the 14th amendment. Something we all seem to have forgot with this constant distraction of courtrooms that this individual finds himself in.
3. Several of those cases were in states that Trump won. Of the several states that Biden won, the challenges were dismissed. Based on your link, it is entirely unfounded to claim this was political retribution.
4. In March the Supreme Court ruled none of them can proceed anyway and the map is irrelevant now, the article says this too. The 14th amendment can't be enforced by state courts, it has to be enforced by Congress.
In my opinion, you have to ignore a staggering number of facts and disregard all the actions of every single person in the courtroom all this month, including the actions of Trump and his own lawyers, to believe that this case in any way a political hit job. The judge actually went out of his way to prevent the prosecution from making it about that; the case was entirely about the illegal ways he conducted business along with his subordinates. Read the transcripts yourself if you don't believe me. https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/
His base thinks he's a victim of a conspiracy by the "deep state" to convict him on fraudulent charges by a kangaroo court. They don't for a second believe he's guilty of anything except being too much of a radical iconoclast for "the man" to handle.
>inb4 flags.
>inb4 flags.
I mean, I assume his base know he's a fraud. He has never made all that much of a secret of it. They just don't care. Like, approximately no-one, you'd assume, is, at this point, saying: "I'm voting for Trump, the noted honest legitimate businessman... wait, he was convicted of a CRIME? Well then I'm not voting for him." His voters know he's a crook.
Exactly. He's a protest vote against the establishment. All that just makes him a better protest.
A significant number of people who told pollsters they were planning to vote for Trump said they would change their mind if he was convicted in court. The question is whether these voters are in swing states.
newfriend(3)
Aren’t the charges misdemeanors?
All 34 charges are first degree felonies. Falsifying business records, up to four years per count, with a maximum sentence of 20 if served consecutively.
They're class E felonies, the lowest class, with the lowest penalty. Jail time is rare.
First-degree only refers to "falsifying business records in the first degree", which is otherwise a misdemeanor.
First-degree only refers to "falsifying business records in the first degree", which is otherwise a misdemeanor.
> Jail time is rare.
The number I've heard is 10% of such cases get jail time, but that includes plea deals which are themselves >90% of cases.
It's a first time conviction but 34 charges with all the antics he's pulled? Who knows what happens.
The number I've heard is 10% of such cases get jail time, but that includes plea deals which are themselves >90% of cases.
It's a first time conviction but 34 charges with all the antics he's pulled? Who knows what happens.
[deleted]
There's actual sentencing guidelines that can be used to calculate what punishment he's more likely to see.
It won't be 20 years.
It won't be 20 years.
Sentencing guidelines are a Federal thing. New York doesn't have any except those laid out in the legal code (the 4/20 maximum I mentioned earlier).
I doubt he'll do any actual prison time, but those are the maximums in NY.
I doubt he'll do any actual prison time, but those are the maximums in NY.
And past the statute of limitations unless they can be presented as felonies. Stand by for things to get very weird... I just hope they don’t get “kinetic.”
Eligibility to be on the ballot varies from state to state.
But he can of course be written in, and it will be interesting to see what happens if he becomes the People's choice via write-in on the ballot of states where a felony bars you from the ballot.
I believe in general he could still be elected because there's no federal law against a felon holding the presidency and technically in States, you vote for the slate of electors (all of whom are eligible to serve), not the person they are voting for.
But he can of course be written in, and it will be interesting to see what happens if he becomes the People's choice via write-in on the ballot of states where a felony bars you from the ballot.
I believe in general he could still be elected because there's no federal law against a felon holding the presidency and technically in States, you vote for the slate of electors (all of whom are eligible to serve), not the person they are voting for.
He's eligible to be on the ballot even if he were convicted of murder.
A criminal conviction would represent a red line for some moderate conservatives.
TheAlchemist(3)
This very much reminds me of my home Russia. Like that time when Navalny was sentenced for fraud and stealing all the lumber, and Putin's press secretary remarking that courts in our country are fully independent and it is absurd to insinuate that the verdict was politically motivated.
Yes if you don’t really pay attention to any of the details then the cases look similar.
Did Navalny also lose the election and then tried to overthrow the elected government by sending fake electors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
what about intimidating government officials to find votes for him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_ph...
what about intimidating government officials to find votes for him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_ph...
Thank you for proving my point that just like Navalny, Trump wasn't prosecuted for whatever he was found guilty of.
He's being prosecuted for both of those things, but both of those trials are on hold awaiting an appeal.
Looks like civil war is already occuring in the US, only question is whether it turns hot
This seems like an odd story to base that on. Laws being fairly applied following centuries of legal precedent isn’t exactly a civil war, although the reaction could be if someone tried to break him out of jail or something like that. Fair trials of political leaders is a hallmark of functioning democracy.
> Fair trials of political leaders is a hallmark of functioning democracy.
Yet this is the first time a US president has ever been brought to trial.
And one could argue that the case against him was based on a legal technicality, where the crime itself is hard to define (and the prosecution wasn't required to fully define it, or the jurors required to agree on it).
Yet this is the first time a US president has ever been brought to trial.
And one could argue that the case against him was based on a legal technicality, where the crime itself is hard to define (and the prosecution wasn't required to fully define it, or the jurors required to agree on it).
The crime was very cut and dry. What might confusing is that the felony level escalation could be triggered by any one of several crimes and those don’t have to be committed by the same person: it could have been related to the tax evasion or attempted election influence but since Michael Cohen had already plead guilty to violating campaign finance laws as well as tax fraud, all prosecutors had to do was show that this crime was committed in part to cover up Cohen’s uncontested crimes. I doubt they’d have had trouble getting an additional conviction on election interference since it’s so clear that was his concern (c.f. Trump’s stated fears about alienating women voters) but a prosecutor is almost always going to take a given rather than having to risk something going wrong.
> The crime was very cut and dry. What might confusing is that the felony level escalation could be triggered by any one of several crimes and those don’t have to be committed by the same person
Yeah, so not cut and dry.
And the "confusing" part is required to arrive at a guilty verdict. The falsifying records charge cannot stand on it's own because the statute of limitations (2 years) has passed. Prosecutors had to engineer the charges into a felony via accusing Trump of violating NY election law (or maybe tax law?), which is anything but cut and dry.
Yeah, so not cut and dry.
And the "confusing" part is required to arrive at a guilty verdict. The falsifying records charge cannot stand on it's own because the statute of limitations (2 years) has passed. Prosecutors had to engineer the charges into a felony via accusing Trump of violating NY election law (or maybe tax law?), which is anything but cut and dry.
> where the crime itself is hard to define
Huh? It seems fairly clear-cut, as a crime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifying_business_records#El...
It's a form of fraud.
Huh? It seems fairly clear-cut, as a crime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifying_business_records#El...
It's a form of fraud.
The jury had multiple options for the "second crime" and they didn't have to agree.
Because those are not what he was charged for. He was charged for falsifying business records.
Right.
But the only way the jury could find him guilty of the 34 felony counts of falsifying business records was to conclude that Trump had done such falsification with the goal of committing another (second) crime.
And my point is, he was not tried or convicted of that second crime. Rather, the prosecution gave the jurors options to select from, and it was up to each juror to conclude that he was guilty of one of them. The prosecution didn't have to demonstrate that he was guilty of a specific crime, and the jurors didn't have to agree with eachother on the second crime.
Not saying the jurors got it wrong. They probably determined (or were instructed) that if they believed he had the affair and they believed that he didn't want the public (or the IRS) to know about it then that's enough to require a guilty verdict.
But the only way the jury could find him guilty of the 34 felony counts of falsifying business records was to conclude that Trump had done such falsification with the goal of committing another (second) crime.
And my point is, he was not tried or convicted of that second crime. Rather, the prosecution gave the jurors options to select from, and it was up to each juror to conclude that he was guilty of one of them. The prosecution didn't have to demonstrate that he was guilty of a specific crime, and the jurors didn't have to agree with eachother on the second crime.
Not saying the jurors got it wrong. They probably determined (or were instructed) that if they believed he had the affair and they believed that he didn't want the public (or the IRS) to know about it then that's enough to require a guilty verdict.
"They probably determined (or were instructed) that if they believed he had the affair and they believed that he didn't want the public (or the IRS) to know about it then that's enough to require a guilty verdict."
Because it was, based on the criteria and definition of the charge, as another member has kindly linked you. Full stop.
Because it was, based on the criteria and definition of the charge, as another member has kindly linked you. Full stop.
Yeah, and like I said, the jury was probably correct given the way the charges were structured.
That doesn't make these novel charges legitimate, and it doesn't mean they'll survive appeal.
From https://time.com/6983196/donald-trump-convicted-hush-money-t...
From the moment Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced charges against Trump more than one year ago, people doubted his unconventional strategy.
“It cheapens the term election interference to call this election interference,” says Richard Hasen, a professor of law at UCLA. Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Boston University, called the case “an embarrassment” that pushed the boundaries of prosecutorial ethics.
It is not illegal to pay someone “hush money.” On its face, Bragg’s evidence pointed to 34 misdemeanor counts of falsifying business records, for all of which the statute of limitations had passed. Bragg’s novel approach bumped each of those misdemeanors up to first-degree felony charges by alleging they were all committed to bolster another crime related to violating election laws, but Bragg didn’t have to prove that second crime.
That doesn't make these novel charges legitimate, and it doesn't mean they'll survive appeal.
From https://time.com/6983196/donald-trump-convicted-hush-money-t...
From the moment Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced charges against Trump more than one year ago, people doubted his unconventional strategy.
“It cheapens the term election interference to call this election interference,” says Richard Hasen, a professor of law at UCLA. Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Boston University, called the case “an embarrassment” that pushed the boundaries of prosecutorial ethics.
It is not illegal to pay someone “hush money.” On its face, Bragg’s evidence pointed to 34 misdemeanor counts of falsifying business records, for all of which the statute of limitations had passed. Bragg’s novel approach bumped each of those misdemeanors up to first-degree felony charges by alleging they were all committed to bolster another crime related to violating election laws, but Bragg didn’t have to prove that second crime.
>That doesn't make these novel charges legitimate, and it doesn't mean they'll survive appeal.
Michael Cohen was already convicted and went to jail on essentially the same charges of hiding illegal campaign contributions.
Michael Cohen was already convicted and went to jail on essentially the same charges of hiding illegal campaign contributions.
Wrong.
From https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-york-election-law-center-trump...
Prosecutors allege that Trump falsified the records to hide a violation of New York Election Law Section 17-152 – a rarely used law that prohibits groups from using unlawful means to influence an election.
From https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-york-election-law-center-trump...
Prosecutors allege that Trump falsified the records to hide a violation of New York Election Law Section 17-152 – a rarely used law that prohibits groups from using unlawful means to influence an election.
Yeah, yeah. Trump's supporters swore on a stack of Bibles that there would be civil war if he was convicted. They've been making threats since Jan. 6th.
Well I guess now that the gauntlet's been thrown they'll just have to pull up or shut up.
Well I guess now that the gauntlet's been thrown they'll just have to pull up or shut up.
I've already erased several snarky, gloating replies because I would like to see discussion of this proceed in something like a civil manner.